...long time ago in a faraway place philosophers worried about the distinction between the one and the many. Architecture is about relationship, which requires the many. Architecture has components. Design is about content, which requires the one. Design has properties, qualities, characteristics. We typically think that design is within architecture. Dualistic thinking gives the many as primordial. But architecture is also within design. It's all how we choose to view what is before us - the one or the many.

这个问题没有明确的答案，因为“软件架构”和“软件设计”有相当多的定义，而且都没有一个规范的定义。

一个很好的思考方法是Len Bass, Paul Clements和Rick Kazman的声明，“所有的架构都是设计，但并不是所有的设计都是架构”[软件架构实践]。我不确定我是否完全同意这一点(因为架构可以包括其他活动)，但它抓住了架构是处理设计的关键子集的设计活动的本质。

我的稍微轻率的定义(在SEI定义页面上找到)是，它是一组决策，如果做出错误的决定，将导致项目被取消。

A useful attempt at separating architecture, design and implementation as concepts was done by Amnon Eden and Rick Kazman some years ago in a research paper entitled "Architecture, Design, Implementation" which can be found here: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/ICSE03-1.pdf. Their language is quite abstract but simplistically they say that architecture is design that can be used in many contexts and is meant to be applied across the system, design is (err) design that can be used in many contexts but is applied in a specific part of the system, and implementation is design specific to a context and applied in that context.

So an architectural decision could be a decision to integrate the system via messaging rather than RPC (so it's a general principle that could be applied in many places and is intended to apply to the whole system), a design decision might be to use a master/slave thread structure in the input request handling module of the system (a general principle that could be used anywhere but in this case is just used in one module) and finally, an implementation decision might be to move responsibilities for security from the Request Router to the Request Handler in the Request Manager module (a decision relevant only to that context, used in that context).

我希望这能有所帮助!

软件设计有更长的历史，而软件架构这个术语只有20年的历史。因此，它正在经历成长的烦恼。

学术界倾向于将架构视为更大的软件设计领域的一部分。尽管越来越多的人认识到Arch是一个独立的领域。

实践者倾向于将Arch视为高级设计决策，具有战略性，并且在项目中撤销可能代价高昂。

Arch和设计之间的确切界限取决于软件领域。例如，在Web应用领域，分层架构是目前最受欢迎的(业务逻辑层，数据访问层等)。Arch的低层部分被认为是设计(类图，方法签名等)。在嵌入式系统，操作系统，编译器等领域，这将是不同的定义。

是的，对我来说听起来不错。设计是你要做的事情，而架构是将设计的各个部分连接在一起的方式。它可以是语言不可知的，但通常会指定要使用的技术，例如LAMP vs Windows, Web服务vs RPC。

我认为当我们讨论设计与架构时，我们应该使用下面的规则来确定:如果您创建的软件图的元素可以一一映射到编程语言的语法结构，那么就是设计，如果不是架构。

So, for example, if you are seeing a class diagram or a sequence diagram, you are able to map a class and their relationships to an Object Oriented Programming language using the Class syntactical construction. This is clearly Design. In addition, this might bring to the table that this discussion has a relation with the programming language you will use to implement a software system. If you use Java, the previous example applies, as Java is an Object Oriented Programming Language. If you come up with a diagram that shows packages and its dependencies, that is Design too. You can map the element (a package in this case) to a Java syntactical construction.

Now, suppose your Java application is divided in modules, and each module is a set of packages (represented as a jar file deployment unit), and you are presented with a diagram containing modules and its dependencies, then, that is Architecture. There isn’t a way in Java (at least not until Java 7) to map a module (a set of packages) to a syntactical construction. You might also notice that this diagram represents a step higher in the level of abstraction of your software model. Any diagram above (coarse grained than) a package diagram, represents an Architectural view when developing in the Java programming language. On the other hand, if you are developing in Modula-2, then, a module diagram represents a Design.

(摘自http://www.copypasteisforword.com/notes/software-architecture-vs-software-design)

我的提醒:

我们可以不征求别人的意见就改变设计 如果我们改变架构，我们需要将其传达给某人(团队、客户、涉众……)